LAMB TRICES.

Southland Times, Issue 22052, 27 June 1933, Page 9

LAMB TRICES.

To the Editor. Sir,—With reference to the greatly increased prices paid for fat lambs at the public saleyards by exporting firms, I presume most farmers will now sit up and take notice, and like John Bull” feel strongly on the matter of schedule prices paid this season, also the grading returns. There have been two letters in defence of prices paid by a Southland company. However, the farmer’s concern is not, how do their prices compare with the schedule of any other province, but the apparently ridiculous difference in the price paid for the several grades now in operation. “John Bull’s” figures regarding prices are quite correct, as every farmer knows, and I will now take an average killing sheet with prices on a 51 d basis, freezing average of lambs 381 b:

Ist quality up to 361 b, sjd. Ist quality over 36 and up to 42, 4:jd. Ist quality over 42, 3Jd. 2nd quality up to 36, 4J>d. 2nd quality over 36 and up to 42, 3Jd. 2nd quality over 42, 3d. This schedule willgiveyouan idea the prices paid on the different grades, and for a line of lambs averaging 381bs would net out approximately 14/8. Will Mr Derbie explain why a 361 b lamb is worth say per lb or a total of 15/9, and one that is 371 b worth only 4Jd, total 13/1J? The difference at beginning of the 1932 season was one. farthing for over 361 b with a corresponding drop according to weight and grade. Ask any housewife her preference for a joint of a 361 b lamb, price 6d per lb, and a joint from a 461 b one, price 5Jd per lb. We won’t be kept guessing long which one she prefers; yet according to prices which we farmers receive, she may get her joint from a 461 b lamb one penny halfpenny per lb less than a 361 b one. T^ e wonder is that we can sell our light weight lambs. Wc must be prepared for a difference in rates, but a penny per lb from a 361 b to a 371 b lamb is out of all reason.

According to the correspondent “Otapiri”, he decided to consign on the assurance of the Hon. J. G. Coates and Mr Jones that there would be a very definite rise in prices this season as the result of the Ottawa agreements. Yet the Government on the advice of the Finance Minister increased the rate of exchange to 25 per cent, with its resultant financial anomalies by way of helping the primary producer. If the Minister was so sure of such a spectacular rise, why increase the rate of exchange? Like Lord Nelson we feel disposed to put the telescope to the blind eye when asked to see eye to eye with such reasoning. Why has the rise in price been so long in coming, right at the end of the season when lambs are all in the hands of exporters? The prices paid for lambs sold at auction recently represent a schedule approximating 7d per lb, grade apparently being a secondary consideration. My experience has been that of the majority of farmers who have been selling carefully selected lambs at 12/- and then getting 18/and 19/- for very indifferent ones. I have discussed this price phenomena with several of my neighbours and we are all agreed that some action is very much due. Some suggest a Farmers’ Freezing works with only genuine farmers holding shares, the works to be run on purely co-operative lines like a dairy factcry, shares to be one pound share and paid for by a levy of 6d per lamb per season until the shares are fully paid up. All lambs to be pooled and shipped on consignment to be disposed of through a selling agent in London. At all events, whether such a scheme is practicable or otherwise, the latest development in our lamb trade has stirred the blood of even the most

apathetic. The letter from the pen of “John Bull” was apparently worthy of a lengthy defence, so take heart “John,” it is a good sign, you have a lot of support as an overwhelming majority of the “cockies” are with you, only as you know, we are expected to keep our heads down, work hard for long hours to produce more and rnore, while we let the other fellows think for us. No doubt every branch of the Farmers’ Union in Southland will discuss recent events in the lamb market when we may expect some concrete proposals brought forward at the next executive meeting in Invercargill. I am, etc., SANDY. To the Editor. Sir,—ln reply to “John Bull” Mr Derbie states in his letter in Saturday’s paper the rates are governed by the Home market, but he does not say who governs the Home market, it appears to the casual observer there is a very close connection between the buyers hero and those who govern the market at Home, as it is very noticeable that when the farmers have parted with the bulk of their fat stock at “schedule rates” the Home market rises in price. As to the farmer being offered every facility for taking the risk of the market and “shipping on his own account” that on the face of last year’s happening appears a joke. The farmers’ lots shipped last year when the price was low (and a great many farmers shipped) proved a loss to the farmers of about a third of the “schedule selling pric.” of the lambs in Southland, yet the Southland Freezing Co. Ltd. buying at the “schedule price” in New Zealand paid a 12 per cent, dividend. One might be forgiven for wondering if by shipping in r: year when the bulk of the lambs were on consignment he was penalised. In other words the Trust get the meat at their own price whether it is sold here or abroad. Of course, when only a few farmers consign they are not worth any attention. TTr Derbie did not explain why a first quality lamb 361bs weight is worth 2/8J more than a 371 b lamb of the same quality. If this could be explained it might solve the problem of why farmers’ sons don’t want to stay on the land.—l am, etc.,